Rodrigo Duterte -- The Sad Philippines Political Circus Goes On

First, full disclosure. My mother was born (1910) and raised in the Philippines. Although I never lived in the country, it was present in the family as my mother often reminisced about her childhood there. Since the early 1980s, I have visited the Philippines frequently and have a good number of Filipino friends. I am fond of the country. But it is also, perhaps because of the fondness, one of the countries I find most exasperating. The recent presidential landslide victory of Rodrigo Duterte exacerbates the exasperation.

Manila circa 1910 when my mother was born

Second, things need to be put in global context. The current global political stage is characterized by buffoonery. Look at what is happening in Brazil, South Africa, Japan, Thailand, and in my native France, while – this is irresistible – Trump trumps it all. So Rodrigo Duterte is not sui generis but reflective of a contemporary syndrome.

But, third, let’s bring the focus back to the Philippines. Economically, if not politically, many of the countries of East Asia have done well; hence the term coined by the World Bank back in 1993, “the East Asian Miracle Economies”. This is by no means pure illusion, but reality. For example, the 2008 Growth and Development Commission Report asked the question how many countries in the world (about 200) in the period 1950 to 2005 were able to generate and sustain an average annual growth rate of 7% over 25 consecutive years. In yet another illustration of how elusive growth is, especially growth sustained over extended periods, the answer is that out of all the economies in the world only thirteen were able to meet that target. And as another definitive manifestation of the East Asian successful economic narrative, out of those thirteen a total of nine are East Asian – 9 out of 13!!

They include: China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Korea, Japan and four of the five founding states of ASEAN – Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand. An update would include Vietnam. But where is the fifth founding member-state of ASEAN, the Philippines? Nowhere. The Philippines stands out in the East Asian success narrative as the flagrant failure.

Yet the paradox is that back in the 1950s and 1960s when much of East Asia was in turmoil – war in Vietnam, Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution in China, insurrection in Malaysia, coup d’état and massacre in Indonesia, etc – the Philippines was seen as the most (only?) promising nation in the region. Though it had suffered a good deal, as had the other East Asian countries, from the Japanese invasion during World War Two, unlike the cases of Malaysia (Britain), Indonesia (the Netherlands), Indochina (France), the decolonization process from the US occurred reasonably smoothly and peacefully. The Philippines was also endowed with very rich natural and mineral resources. The level of education was comparatively high. The human resources are rich in potential. The wide prevalence of the English language was also quite definitely an advantage.

The Philippines had a lot going for it. But they blew it!

Conventional wisdom places much of the blame with Ferdinand Marcos, his family (especially his wife, Imelda) and their cronies. He ruled as president from 1965 to 1986, with the years 1972 to 1981 under martial law. His regime was a kleptocracy; the country was shamelessly looted. The fact that Marcos was a dictator corresponded to much of the East Asian political landscape at the time. Park Chung Hee was dictator of South Korea from 1961 to 1979, with the country also under martial law during much of that time. Park, even if somewhat reviled politically, is credited with being the architect of Korea’s economic ascendance. Suharto was dictator of Indonesia from 1967 to 1998 during which time (until the Asian Financial Crisis) he oversaw the country’s impressive growth. Yet Marcos stands out as the East Asian dictator who made himself rich, but failed abysmally to bring prosperity to the country. Much of his abundant cash was stashed in foreign accounts and property.

Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos with buddy Ronald Reagan

I was visiting Manila frequently throughout the 1980s and experienced the conspiratorial fervor of my Filipino anti-Marcos “People Power” friends and the elation after his overthrow in February 1986. In the sumptuous lobby bar of the Peninsula Hotel, we plotted and then celebrated the revolution! The relief led to the quite widespread belief that now that Marcos was gone the sun would henceforth shine brightly on the Philippines.

Lobby Bar at Manila Peninsula Hotel

In fact I remember a speech given by Jaime Ongpin, in opposition to Marcos and later Finance Minister of President Cory Aquino, Marcos’s democratically elected successor, a couple of years or so before the overthrow, about 1984, at a breakfast meeting in the Makati district. The Philippines, he said, faces three obstacles to development: political, economic and social.

The political obstacle can be overcome tomorrow by overthrowing Marcos. The economic obstacle can be overcome by abandoning the economic policy focused on highly expensive white-elephant projects that deliver no tangible results to the economy overall and instead focus on the small-and-medium size industrial sector and reforming agriculture. That, he reckoned, could be accomplished in five to ten years. The social obstacle was to transform Filipino society from its deeply entrenched feudal system and mentality to modernity. That he reckoned would take a generation.

Well, Duterte’s election sadly shows we have not got there yet.

To describe succinctly what has happened I quote here an extract from an excellent and incisive article by the Filipina author and journalist Gina Apostol: “Since Filipinos drove Marcos out of office in 1986, citizens have witnessed land reform fail, corruption scandals erupt (two presidents, Joseph Estrada and Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, have gone to jail), infrastructure decay, and responses to natural disasters bungled. Citizens have seen journalists massacred, peace treaties upended, and state harassment or outright murders of farmers, student activists, and labor leaders. They have weathered violent military action in indigenous, resource-rich lands. It is as if Marcos never left”. “No wonder”, she adds, “Filipinos continue to seek jobs overseas in droves — 2.32 million workers left the country in 2015”.

The total number of overseas Filipino contract workers is estimated at 10 million, 1/10th the population of the country. Close to 2 ½ million are in the GCC countries, including some 200,000 in Qatar slavishly working away preparing for the 2022 World Cup.

Filipino workers in Qatar: preparing for the 2022 world cup

Because the Filipino elites have been incapable of developing a viable national economy, it has to send its workers overseas, who in turn send remittances that represent a significant and vital component of GDP. Without them, the Philippines economy would collapse. Against the economic benefits, the social and psychological costs are enormous. While the Filipino diaspora includes managers, bankers, lawyers, doctors and others of the professional classes, the overwhelming majority are low-skilled workers, construction for men and domestic help for women. (Prostitution is also rife.) Working conditions are poor, hours are long, sanitation is grim, and wages are low. Many are subjected to physical beatings, while sexual harassment and cases of outright rape are not rare. Families are torn apart, with mothers separated from their children for extended periods.

In Hong Kong, where this article is being written, estimated numbers of Filipina domestic helpers vary between 150,000 to 200,000. On Sundays, they congregate in the Central District. They meet up with friends and enthusiastically chat away – the din is quite strong, but melodious and, in its own way, melancholically joyous. One’s heart goes out to them. In the face of adversity, they are courageous. If only they could belong to a nation that cares.

HK Filipina domestic help workers congregate on a Sunday

Duterte is a foul loud-mouthed populist suffering from an acute case of machismo. (Gina Apostol describes him as “the Filipino Trump turned up to 11!) The fact that he won by a landslide obviously proves many Filipinos voted for him. It is believed that many of the Hong Kong domestic help cast their overseas ballots for Duterte. The conventional analysis, as with Donald Trump, is that the vote represents pent-up rage. But though Duterte produces a great deal of populist invective, it is highly unlikely that his government will bring about constructive progressive change.

Jaime Ongpin was right. There has to be a transformative social evolution away from the current feudal structure that, among other things, results in 70% of national wealth mobilized by 40 families. In the meantime, as described by Gina Apostol, the “long-suffering Philippines” will continue to suffer. It is very, very sad.